2. In the instant crime, the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim, at the entrance and entrance of the apartment site and the entrance of the entrance of the victim, is not good, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable mental impulse and sexual humiliation due to the instant crime, and the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim, and the victim also wanted to punish the Defendant, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized the entire crime and divided his mistake in depth, and the degree of indecent act committed by the Defendant is very serious.

In addition to the punishment of a fine for violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the fact that the defendant has no record of crime is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfeasible to the punishment imposed by the lower court.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.